ST. PAUL'S EDUCATION FOUNDATION,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1785/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 October 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee was not aware of the hearing, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee claimed not to have received notice of the hearing. The assessee filed the present appeal before the ITAT 91 days late, citing non-receipt of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte without proper notice to the assessee is sustainable. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2018-19.

2.

The present appeal is time barred by 91 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not receive any notice from the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the hearing of the appeal. That notice, if any, sent on e-mail of the assessee remained unnoticed till second week of July, 2024. That when the said impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the income tax portal and the same was noticed by the tax consultant, only AY: 2018-19, St. Paul’s Education Foundation then, the assessee came to know of the passing of the appellate order. That the delay in filing the present appeal was not intentional. Considering the above submissions, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the same is an ex parte order. He has reiterated his submission that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, his case remained unrepresented. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

4.

Considering the rival submissions, in our view, interests of justice will be served if the assessee be given an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. It is also directed that the assessee will regularly check its e-mail etc. and will properly appear and represent its case as and when called for by the Ld. CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →